I think we are all pointing in the same direction . Integrated force not balanced forces. Redundancy in order to confront what is coming up (quantum , a resort to exotics like bio and chemical and genetic) it would be good to get round a table and discuss everything , such as carrier strike,CASD, reserve forces . Get it across something CAN be done as well as needs to be done.

Really on point on the Today programme : integrated force not balanced force - will they do it ? Need to articulate a set of priorities and then carry them out - fast !

What we don’t yet know is whether Dan Jarvis becoming Defence Secretary was conditional on him accepting the current DIP, or - as a highly respected former Army officer - he persuaded Keir Starmer to reopen it for more money as his terms for doing the job. Much hangs on this.

Yes must revise SDR assumptions on these lines. Dan is a realist but Starmer and Reeves must back him - which means giving up their proclivity for student politics and infighting.

On the money Mark !

The duff aircraft carriers are down to Labour ministers Brown and Browne- yes Ajax needs to be investigated

Simplistic stuff Chris

Wonderful constructive insightful piece of prose. Marcel Proust eat your heart out

Jolly good

A rant. There’s a misunderstanding about just how short the government’s Defence Investment Plan will fall, when we do finally see it. Sadly, it’s so much worse than the general conception. It’s not just the gap between the £28billon that the chiefs asked for and the £13.5bn Rachel Reeves is offering. The chiefs’ £28bn was actually just the minimum they think defence needs to get through the next four years. To pay for the full transformation that the SDR prescribes, and insists is vital, I’m told internal MoD estimates put the real sum needed at 4.5 or 5% of GDP (which btw is also NATO’s new annual spending target). The UK currently only spends 2.3% of its GDP on defence, rising to 2.5% next April. In cash terms, that means defence actually needs an extra £60bn, and not just over 4 years but EVERY year. That’s the true scale of the task, and what our allies like Germany and Poland are now well on their way towards. So the Treasury/No10’s current sticking plaster offer is not just woefully thin, it doesn’t even touch the sides. To defend Britain properly in the frightening modern world that we now live, the next Prime Minister (Burnham, Badenoch or Farage) is going to have to start all over again. And unlike the current government, they will have to have this debate publicly and honestly.

Excellent piece William. May I quote it today for the I ? It really is one of the very best pieces I have read , especially as you show how the problem goes well beyond Defence and the DIP .

Is CASD forever?

They are not really interested. The debate is like a bad PPE seminar with its Lego land approach to history. Obvs Starmer, Hermer, Reeves, Little don’t take the warnings of security services MI6,5 GCHQ seriously. SDR in reality was a false prospectus

GCAP and AUKUS subjects of international treaties. Don’t imagine short-term meddling by Reeves considers long term implications. They’re in the bunker.

Through the looking glass?

And of course the Treasury will f it up all over again - as they nearly always do. We wouldn’t have the dinosaur aircraft carriers but for them and G Brown. Their expertise in defence is generally too self-regarding; the mandarin culture is outdated.

Well, I wonder where Lucy got that idea from ?

There is a strange development in which academics of international politics are expected to publicly condemn adversarial countries before they are allowed to participate in public discourse. The complexity of international politics is reduced to a moral question of good versus evil, and academics must make moral declarations before even discussing facts, history, strategy, and interpretations. Academics should explain why states behave as they do; they are not moral validators. What value does it bring to an analysis if the analyst "condemns" one side? After Russia invaded Ukraine, the former Norwegian foreign minister actually argued that "this is not the time to understand, but to condemn". This ridiculous position is pushed on academics. However, understanding is not endorsement, explanation is not advocacy, and ignorance is not strength. I argue it is in Russia's security interest to push NATO away from its borders, it is in Iran's interest to control the Strait of Hormuz, and it is in China's interest to create a new international economic architecture. This is not advocacy, nor is it a normative position about how the world should work; rather, it is a recognition of how the world actually works. An academic should examine interests, capabilities, and strategic calculations that produce such policies—not participate in ritualised declarations of virtue that contribute absolutely nothing. Furthermore, moralism and condemnation often lead to a lack of understanding and increased conflict. When the conclusion is always that the good guys are confronting the bad guys, then the solution is always "peace through strength", "weapons are the path to peace", and defeating the latest reincarnation of Hitler. If you want war, condemn the other side as pure evil. If you want peace, the first step is to understand the other side.

Vetoed by the Treasury and the anti-Welfare Reform lobby ( = half the government) security and defence not a priority - probably never was. Approach to alliances completely cynical

Oh dear ! So Russia / Putin is winning? Who is behind this stuff ?